wa8yxm wrote:

What most folks do not know is in parts of the country alcohol has been added to gas at least part of the time for many decades, I'm sure of the 60's likely before that.. The ads said "My advice sir, Get De-ICEr" Claiming that one gas company had an additive that prevented gas line freeze-up (Standard oil if anyone wonders)

The additive.. Alcohol of course, what else, about 2 percent back then.

Now, for the people who said you loose 10% mpg with 10% EtOH, No, you loose 10% MPG with E-85, you loose about 1 percent with 10%

And it's not "Gasahol" till it's well over 10%

Retired andLoveIt wrote:


I think if you do a little research you will find that you will in fact lose up to 10%mpg with 10% blended fuel. Research shows that the national average is up to 26%mpg lose with a E-85 blend. Any figures different are provided by Alcohol producers and investors.

Yes alcohol has been blended with gasoline for years. You must get the facts straight. De-icers have isopropyl alcohol in them. Early alcohol blended gasoline had methanol which raised havoc on gaskets and rubber components. The current alcohol blend contains ethanol.

All are manufactured differently and have different properties and uses.

The use of a food source to produce ethanol has caused the cost of a good portion of your meats and dairy products to skyrocket. Due to the demand of corn for production of ethanol the price of corn has gone up three fold in the last couple of years. Who is going to run this corn though a cow , a pig or a chicken when they can haul it straight to the alcohol plant and get $6 or $7 a bushel for it. A study that was current 2 years ago showed that for every $1 of total energy that went into the production of ethanol a return of $1.25 was realized. At that time market price of corn was $1.73 a bushel.
When I calculate my cost per mile I can actually drive a little cheaper using regular unleaded verses a 10% blend. The real costs are hidden from the consumer because of the subsidies the government pays to the producers and blenders of ethanol.

427435 wrote:

First, there is no way that a 10% ethanol blend will cause a 10% reduction in mpg. While the ethanol has a lower BTU content, it still has lots of BTU's. If what you said were true, Indy cars wouldn't run at all.

427435 wrote:



First, there is no way that a 10% ethanol blend will cause a 10% reduction in mpg. While the ethanol has a lower BTU content, it still has lots of BTU's. If what you said were true, Indy cars wouldn't run at all.

Your data on $ of energy in vs $ of energy out are also wrong. You're confusing old data on BTU's in vs BTU's out----and even that is out of date. Today's plants are getting 1.5-1.8 BTU's out vs 1 BTU in. And the BTU's in are not coming from potable fuel---which is what we need to drive cars, trucks, and tractors. The BTU's in come mostly from coal (along with some natural gas). These BTU's come a lot cheaper than a BTU of gasoline.

Also remember, that when the corn is done with the ethanol process, it still has considerable livestock feed value and is so used.

One of the main reasons gas is now cheaper than diesel fuel is that ethanol is providing a good part of our non-diesel fuel supply. If you want to go back to the days when gas was more expensive than diesel, just take the ethanol production away. The money I spend on steaks and burgers hasn't gone up enough to offset what I would be spending on gasoline if it was 50-75 cents higher than it is now (like the good old days when it was more expensive than diesel)!!